BURSTEIN AND ISENBERG (4/7/14): In the recently released report he commissioned on the bridge closing scandal, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s lawyer depicts the client as the innocent who was ensnared in the web woven by an “emotional” woman. No longer is Bridget Anne Kelly his hard-working deputy chief of staff, doing the bidding of a canny, no-nonsense governor; instead, she is your run-of-the-mill hysterical female lashing out against the multitude of commuters to get revenge, somehow, for being dumped by a guy.

Does this scenario make any sense? Why is it so common to subject to psychoanalysis a public official who is a woman? Why must she be cast as the dangerously “emotional” one in a political drama that paints Christie as a properly sensitive, duly caring public servant with “heartfelt” concern for his staff? Kelly’s attorney reacted to the obvious gender bias: “The report’s venomous, gratuitous, and inappropriate sexist remarks concerning Ms. Kelly have no place in what is alleged to be a professional and independent report.”

That account has nothing to do with the contents of the Mastro report.

The writing in the Mastro report is almost as dumb as that of Burstein and Isenberg themselves. But it doesn’t portray Bridget Kelly as “your run-of-the-mill hysterical female lashing out against the multitude of commuters to get revenge for being dumped by a guy.”

Nor does the Mastro report portray Kelly as “an ‘emotional’ woman.” That just isn’t what it says.

In the 340 pages of the Mastro report, the word “emotional” is applied to Kelly just one time. In that one instance, Christie staffer Melissa Orsen is quoted saying that Kelly “seemed emotional” at a rather difficult moment in December 2013.

The incident has nothing to do with Kelly getting dumped by a guy. Unless we assume they’re lying, Burstein and Isenberg simply haven’t read the Mastro report.

(Just for the record, the Mastro report applies the term “emotional” to Christie in six different passages.)

After reading that remarkable passage, we wondered who Burstein and Isenberg were. We were surprised by what we found. Here’s why:

When one checks the background of Salon writers, one normally learns that they are extremely young.

In this case, the news was worse. Burstein and Isenberg are professors at LSU. And they’re not on the youngish side.

25 comments:

Unless these people are professors specializing in the area of their commentary, they have no more authority than anyone on the street. They are as much entitled to their mistaken opinions as Maddow is, surely?

Bob must first count the number of times Feinstein is called "emotional" to see if it crosses a certain threshhold known only to him. Then he must consult Nexis to see if Dick Cheney was ever called "emotional" regardless of context.

For instance, if he finds that Cheney welled up with tears after he shot his friend in the face, that means criticism of the "emotional" Feinstein is justified, and yet another case of "career liberals" throwing around the "S" word.

Now then, when was the last time you read of a female gang member who shot up a neighborhood; or a young, disturbed female who went on a rampage in an elementary school, a mall, a military base; or a congresswoman who slept with an intern, a male prostitute or a campaign aide’s husband?

Could anything be less interesting than a continuation of the "bridge scandal" war being waged against Chris Christie? People are actually dying in wars and starving in famines, and we are still blatting about a two day traffic delay.

And might we also point out it was a four day delay, not merely two. It might have been a five day delay or more had it not been for the courageous local press catching on after only four and alerting the highest up in the Port Authoritywhat was actually happening on their busiest bridge (indeed the busiest bridge in the whole wide world!).

Of course, since the press doesn't cover war and famines, and only misreports test scores, we won't be hearing anything about the first two. And merely corrections about the latter.

If your point is that the coverage is out of proportion to the importance of the story, calling it a "war being waged against Chris Christie" tends to undercut your point. I would call it "media are finally paying attention to the misdeeds of a corrupt asshole." I suppose that would tip you off to my bias, as your comment tips me off to yours.